PFD report

Stevyn Carr · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Apr 2024•Gateshead and South Tyneside

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Failure to grade vulnerable incidents at the appropriate level
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand
  2. Failure to provide timely oversight of incidents
  3. Insufficient police resources causing delays in attendance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.10

  1. Action

    Implement an enhanced process for delayed Grade 2 incidents, including escalation, caller re-contact, renewed risk assessment and safeguarding consideration.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  2. Action

    Modify the Storm incident management system with call scripts to support Communications staff decision-making on Right Care, Right Person cases.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.
  3. Action

    Provide each Response Team with a dedicated Sergeant to review incidents and assist Communications staff with resource allocation.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Some public assistance requests are assigned to the most appropriate agency rather than the police following risk assessment.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to grade vulnerable incidents at the appropriate level

Wider context from the report

“(1) The evidence I heard at inquest indicated the level of police response should have been classed as a Grade 2 Vulnerable to ensure a more timely response. (2) No oversight of the incident took place for over 9 hours and at that a comment was made that there were no resources able to attend, but no other options/alternatives were pursued. (3) The family of Stevyn Carr contacted police some 15 hours after the first call to the police and after this a further 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed before police went to his address and found him. (4) I heard evidence at inquest that a number of incidents were ‘delayed’ for a significant period for lack of police resources and this position was common place at that time. (5) I have asked for evidence to satisfy me that the position in terms of police attendance has improved both within the area Stevyn Carr died, but across the Northumbria Police force area. The evidence I have received is difficult to interpret and not comprehensive. I am concerned whether the changes to the management of incidents and/or training in relation to the grading of incidents by Northumbria Police has improved since Stevyn Carr’s death, to the extent that the timeliness of police response to requests from the public for assistance is improved and is improving. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide timely oversight of incidents

Wider context from the report

“(1) The evidence I heard at inquest indicated the level of police response should have been classed as a Grade 2 Vulnerable to ensure a more timely response. (2) No oversight of the incident took place for over 9 hours and at that a comment was made that there were no resources able to attend, but no other options/alternatives were pursued. (3) The family of Stevyn Carr contacted police some 15 hours after the first call to the police and after this a further 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed before police went to his address and found him. (4) I heard evidence at inquest that a number of incidents were ‘delayed’ for a significant period for lack of police resources and this position was common place at that time. (5) I have asked for evidence to satisfy me that the position in terms of police attendance has improved both within the area Stevyn Carr died, but across the Northumbria Police force area. The evidence I have received is difficult to interpret and not comprehensive. I am concerned whether the changes to the management of incidents and/or training in relation to the grading of incidents by Northumbria Police has improved since Stevyn Carr’s death, to the extent that the timeliness of police response to requests from the public for assistance is improved and is improving. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficient police resources causing delays in attendance

Wider context from the report

“(1) The evidence I heard at inquest indicated the level of police response should have been classed as a Grade 2 Vulnerable to ensure a more timely response. (2) No oversight of the incident took place for over 9 hours and at that a comment was made that there were no resources able to attend, but no other options/alternatives were pursued. (3) The family of Stevyn Carr contacted police some 15 hours after the first call to the police and after this a further 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed before police went to his address and found him. (4) I heard evidence at inquest that a number of incidents were ‘delayed’ for a significant period for lack of police resources and this position was common place at that time. (5) I have asked for evidence to satisfy me that the position in terms of police attendance has improved both within the area Stevyn Carr died, but across the Northumbria Police force area. The evidence I have received is difficult to interpret and not comprehensive. I am concerned whether the changes to the management of incidents and/or training in relation to the grading of incidents by Northumbria Police has improved since Stevyn Carr’s death, to the extent that the timeliness of police response to requests from the public for assistance is improved and is improving. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to pursue alternative attendance options when resources are unavailable

Wider context from the report

“(1) The evidence I heard at inquest indicated the level of police response should have been classed as a Grade 2 Vulnerable to ensure a more timely response. (2) No oversight of the incident took place for over 9 hours and at that a comment was made that there were no resources able to attend, but no other options/alternatives were pursued. (3) The family of Stevyn Carr contacted police some 15 hours after the first call to the police and after this a further 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed before police went to his address and found him. (4) I heard evidence at inquest that a number of incidents were ‘delayed’ for a significant period for lack of police resources and this position was common place at that time. (5) I have asked for evidence to satisfy me that the position in terms of police attendance has improved both within the area Stevyn Carr died, but across the Northumbria Police force area. The evidence I have received is difficult to interpret and not comprehensive. I am concerned whether the changes to the management of incidents and/or training in relation to the grading of incidents by Northumbria Police has improved since Stevyn Carr’s death, to the extent that the timeliness of police response to requests from the public for assistance is improved and is improving. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide comprehensive and interpretable assurance of improvements to incident management and grading

Wider context from the report

“(1) The evidence I heard at inquest indicated the level of police response should have been classed as a Grade 2 Vulnerable to ensure a more timely response. (2) No oversight of the incident took place for over 9 hours and at that a comment was made that there were no resources able to attend, but no other options/alternatives were pursued. (3) The family of Stevyn Carr contacted police some 15 hours after the first call to the police and after this a further 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed before police went to his address and found him. (4) I heard evidence at inquest that a number of incidents were ‘delayed’ for a significant period for lack of police resources and this position was common place at that time. (5) I have asked for evidence to satisfy me that the position in terms of police attendance has improved both within the area Stevyn Carr died, but across the Northumbria Police force area. The evidence I have received is difficult to interpret and not comprehensive. I am concerned whether the changes to the management of incidents and/or training in relation to the grading of incidents by Northumbria Police has improved since Stevyn Carr’s death, to the extent that the timeliness of police response to requests from the public for assistance is improved and is improving. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement an enhanced process for delayed Grade 2 incidents, including escalation, caller re-contact, renewed risk assessment and safeguarding consideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the actual incident, it is believed this would now be identified as a vulnerable incident but a definitive response to this cannot be provided as each assessment is a subjective assessment made by an individual. We have however implemented an enhanced process for Grade 2 incidents that were not attended within SLA to ensure a continued assessment of the risk.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Modify the Storm incident management system with call scripts to support Communications staff decision-making on Right Care, Right Person cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident the “Right Care, Right Person” (RCRP) process is also now live within Northumbria Police. RCRP is an initiative which has been implemented nationally within policing and seeks to ensure that the most appropriate agency responds to requests for assistance from members of the public. Incidents for RCRP are still risk assessed using THRIVE, but the most appropriate agency to engage with the caller may not always be the police. All Communications staff have received training in RCRP. The force incident management system (Storm) has been altered so that Communications Department staff may use call scripts to assist in their decision making. The Risk Management Desk, which is staffed with experienced police officers, conduct a secondary review for incidents where the Call Handler is uncertain if an incident fits the criteria for RCRP.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Provide each Response Team with a dedicated Sergeant to review incidents and assist Communications staff with resource allocation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, since the incident each Response Team now has a dedicated Sergeant who reviews incidents and assists the Communications Department in assigning resources. This ensures a swifter level of service.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Introduce a Grade 3 response with dedicated resources, 24-hour deployment, victim-availability scheduling and single-crewed officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recognising that our performance for non-emergency incidents could be improved, a review of the deployment model has been completed. This review has led to the introduction of a Grade 3 response which will have dedicated resources to deploy to the incidents within 24 hours of the caller contacting the police. The response will be diarised in accordance with victim availability and will be serviced by single crewed officers. Incidents which will remain graded as G2 incidents will be those with elements of vulnerability or other time critical issues. This change to the grading structure enables Communications staff and frontline officers to identify which non-emergency incidents require a timelier response, to enable them to deploy resources more appropriately.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Train all Communications staff in the Right Care, Right Person process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident the “Right Care, Right Person” (RCRP) process is also now live within Northumbria Police. RCRP is an initiative which has been implemented nationally within policing and seeks to ensure that the most appropriate agency responds to requests for assistance from members of the public. Incidents for RCRP are still risk assessed using THRIVE, but the most appropriate agency to engage with the caller may not always be the police. All Communications staff have received training in RCRP. The force incident management system (Storm) has been altered so that Communications Department staff may use call scripts to assist in their decision making. The Risk Management Desk, which is staffed with experienced police officers, conduct a secondary review for incidents where the Call Handler is uncertain if an incident fits the criteria for RCRP.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct daily Pacesetter meetings chaired by the Force Gold Commander to oversee and scrutinise response times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a 15.1% improvement in vulnerable grade 2 incidents against the year before. There is also high-level oversight and scrutiny of response times during the daily Pacesetter meeting, which is chaired by the Force Gold Commander. We expect still further improvement in our response times as we embed this new force operating model.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 4 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement the Right Care, Right Person process, supported by THRIVE risk assessment and secondary review of uncertain cases.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident the “Right Care, Right Person” (RCRP) process is also now live within Northumbria Police. RCRP is an initiative which has been implemented nationally within policing and seeks to ensure that the most appropriate agency responds to requests for assistance from members of the public. Incidents for RCRP are still risk assessed using THRIVE, but the most appropriate agency to engage with the caller may not always be the police. All Communications staff have received training in RCRP. The force incident management system (Storm) has been altered so that Communications Department staff may use call scripts to assist in their decision making. The Risk Management Desk, which is staffed with experienced police officers, conduct a secondary review for incidents where the Call Handler is uncertain if an incident fits the criteria for RCRP.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Embed THRIVE assessment and related best-practice learning as a standing item in Communications staff Protected Learning Days.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been improvements across the department in terms of the identification of vulnerable victims and incidents which have centred around the THRIVE assessment made by the contact handler, which looks to identify threat, harm risk, investigative opportunities, vulnerability and level of engagement at the first point of contact, but also through the life of the incident with further THRIVE assessments completed when required. THRIVE has become a standing agenda item on the Protected Learning Days for Communications staff which includes best practice alongside areas of learning.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement the new Operating Model, including staff realignment, enhanced area leadership and increased response-policing officer numbers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Force moved to a new Operating Model on the 4th March this year which included a re-alignment of staff to each of the 6 area commands and a more enhanced leadership structure for each area. This means that there are increased officer numbers working in response policing giving us a better ability to meet calls for service in a timely manner aligned to more focussed leadership and accountability. Although the model has only been running for a short period of time it is evident this has had a positive impact with improvements in the percentage of incidents attended within our stated times, a 13.3% improvement in grade 2 incidents and”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Establish a full-time Risk Management Desk to reassess risks and grading for vulnerable Grade 2 incidents delayed beyond one hour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is now a full time Risk Management Desk in place, whose responsibility is the ongoing assessment and mitigation of risk within vulnerable incidents. If a caller is classified as Vulnerable from their initial Grade 2 (G2V) call then in the event the incident is not responded to within one hour the Risk Management Desk will re-contact the caller and undertake a full review of their risks and vulnerabilities and assess if the incident requires a change of grading.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Some public assistance requests are assigned to the most appropriate agency rather than the police following risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident the “Right Care, Right Person” (RCRP) process is also now live within Northumbria Police. RCRP is an initiative which has been implemented nationally within policing and seeks to ensure that the most appropriate agency responds to requests for assistance from members of the public. Incidents for RCRP are still risk assessed using THRIVE, but the most appropriate agency to engage with the caller may not always be the police. All Communications staff have received training in RCRP. The force incident management system (Storm) has been altered so that Communications Department staff may use call scripts to assist in their decision making. The Risk Management Desk, which is staffed with experienced police officers, conduct a secondary review for incidents where the Call Handler is uncertain if an incident fits the criteria for RCRP.”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 3 · response
Published 29 April 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026